travellers and ethnicity

landser

I heard a guy from pavee point (? Connors) on Morning Ireland this a.m. talking about the Irish Govt.'s need to recognise travellers as an ethnic minority in Irish Society. THere is some human rights conference on in Austria, and this is where this argument is being put forward.

His main drive for seeking this status was that the government would then have to give them more free hand-outs for sitting on their asses.

The point that travellers are not a seperate ethnic group unto themselves was made to Connors, whose only retort was that Irish travellers were seen as an ethnic minority in the UK and that this was because they were travellers not that they Irish (very unlikely)and the fact that they had a different culture means they are ethnically different.

FFS, they are not ethnically different (unlike the romany gypsies of central europe who are). they are Irish people who live in caravans and drive 4x4's. it's even a stretch to say that they have a different culture.... the fact that someone lives in a caravan does not a culture make.

i live in an apartment, don't want to work and fancy my sister... can i have a grant please!

uberwolf

these threads always descend into a dual mandate. Debating whether it's racist to diss travellers and then those who don't give a flute and detail some horror story they've had.

Shame the thread starter bypassed the usual bedding in before this happened.

Travellers have a different lifestyle no doubt. Culture maybe, ethnicity not IMO. But is it down to my or anyone else opinion?

It's a lifestyle/culture that I object to. Maybe thats because it grates with the majority population. But I think it's dated and that just because it suits a few people to continue that we shouldn't have to support it economically nor infrastructurally.

A piece in teh Irish Times last week was discussing the discrimination which resulted in early deaths for travellers. 12 years younger than the nations average I think it was. Of course in this instance one of the principal causes was this very lifestyle that is so sacrosanct. A woman who appeared to be a rather rough looking 35 had 7 children all under 8 or 9 in the picture accompanying the article.

It's an exercise in removing responsibility for the consequences of your decisions.

And we can we please not have to tip toe around sensibilities if this thread stays open. Abuse is one thing but the climate of PC is threatening open debate in to many places

BuffyBot

His main drive for seeking this status was that the government would then have to give them more free hand-outs for sitting on their asses.

You know, I'm sure he didn't actually say that...

i live in an apartment, don't want to work and fancy my sister... can i have a grant please!

Well, what you do is your business - but no you can't have a grant

landser

uberwolf wrote:

these threads always descend into a dual mandate. Debating whether it's racist to diss travellers and then those who don't give a flute and detail some horror story they've had.

Shame the thread starter bypassed the usual bedding in before this happened.

Travellers have a different lifestyle no doubt. Culture maybe, ethnicity not IMO. But is it down to my or anyone else opinion?

not sure what you meant by the second paragraph of your reply.

It is my opinion that travellers do not have what one would term " a culture". culture is difficult to define, but living in a carvan and travelling around the country cannot be considered to be a culture in any normal sense of the word. at best it is a way of life.

If the travellers are recognised as an ethnic minority, which they are not, it'll mean even more demands from local and national governement, for which i will have to pay

uberwolf

landser wrote:

not sure what you meant by the second paragraph of your reply.

What I mean is this. It is very difficult to debate well this emotive topic. That task is only possible if efforts are made to avoid making incendiary remarks that allow anyone who disagrees with you slap you down with out actually engaging your point. It's simiar to the mistake Myers made. He had a topic to debate but he failed to start a debate because people were able to focus on some other aspect of his piece other than the point.

when you say things like "sitting on their asses" and when you perpetuate stereotypes like incest you provide a stick. everyone starts shouting at each other and the thread ends up locked with no exchange of debate.

Which would be a shame, cos we're reading off the same hymn sheet (approx), and by saying what I did I was trying to deflect from the insults and focus on the debate by extending your points.

landser

fair point.

billy the squid

His main drive for seeking this status was that the government would then have to give them more free hand-outs for sitting on their asses.

If you were to say the same thing about farmers you would be accused of making generalisations, but it would seem it is ok to say it about members of the travelling community.

iIMHO the travelling community is a minority cultural group. they have their own history, customs, and language.

I think peoples opinions on the issue are clouded by horrer stories they have heard from their friends and the media.

but there are plenty of horror storyies to go around, about settled people, foreigners, etc. it just tends to get more attention if a traveller is implicated in such a story. the likes of the Sunday World love a good tinker criminal story.

Trojan

Oh, the irony - Billy immediately does as uber foretells

landser

billy the squid wrote:

iIMHO the travelling community is a minority cultural group. they have their own history, customs, and language.QUOTE]

firstly, i note that you refrain from using the expression "minority ethnic group".

as for being a cultural group, that could well be argued along the lines you set out above. likewise the population of Sligo (or any other area) are also a minotrity cultural group within that definition having their own history, culture and if not a language, a very strong accent with varied slang akin to what travellers have (travellers, at best, have a dialect and not a language). Are the people of sligo therefore entitled to special status?

My family also has its own history and customs.

uberwolf

the_syco wrote:

non-relevant off-topic inflammatory rubbish deleted by moderator

I'd swear you did that on purpose.

the_syco

uberwolf wrote:

I'd swear you did that on purpose.

Did what?

bonkey

uberwolf wrote:

Travellers have a different lifestyle no doubt. Culture maybe, ethnicity not IMO. But is it down to my or anyone else opinion?

While its no legal definition, dictionary.com defines ethnic as Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

If they have a distinct culture, surely then the question of whether or not they are an ethnic group is solely down to whether or not they are a "sizeable group"?

jc

billy the squid

landser wrote:

billy the squid wrote:

iIMHO the travelling community is a minority cultural group. they have their own history, customs, and language.QUOTE]

firstly, i note that you refrain from using the expression "minority ethnic group".

not all travellers in ireland are necessarily of Irish decent,, so I will say minority ethnic group now if you like,

as for being a cultural group, that could well be argued along the lines you set out above. likewise the population of Sligo (or any other area) are also a minotrity cultural group within that definition having their own history, culture and if not a language, a very strong accent with varied slang akin to what travellers have (travellers, at best, have a dialect and not a language). Are the people of sligo therefore entitled to special status?

shelta is not a linguage? I would disagree with this, but that is my point of view,and I do respect you for making yours.

Oh, the irony - Billy immediately does as uber foretells

let the personal swiping begin.

actually my point is that he has the misconseption that travellers are looking for extra money for doing nothing. while neglecting to mention that there are very many hard working and tax paying travellers out there, in the same way that farmers,and indeed civil servants are perceived to be always haveing their hand out while at the same time they do nothing to earn it. this is not the case. the professions i mention all have hard working people in their ranks and such a generalisation is unfair.

billy the squid

Throw them in prison, and burn their caravans. When they get out, they can go into social houses.

like they did to the jews during the night of broken glass, great idea

actually the jews called them gettoes

I don't give a funk about their "culture difference". The only difference I see is that I put my rubbish in a bin, and if I move, I don't leave large amounts of rubbish lying around. Also, I don't.

The pat Kenny show has a feature all about people (settled people) carrying out illegal dumping, even more so since the privitisation of refuse collection.

landser

bonkey wrote:

While its no legal definition, dictionary.com defines ethnic as Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

If they have a distinct culture, surely then the question of whether or not they are an ethnic group is solely down to whether or not they are a "sizeable group"?

jc

you'll note the word distinctive is used in this definition. this is of greater import than whether they are a sizeable minority (which they probably are).

living in caravan may well be distinctive... living in an apartment might also be such.... am i part of an ethnic grouping because of this? nope.

aodh_rua

billy the squid wrote:

actually the jews called them gettoes

Actually they were called ghettos.

Everyone is entitled to explore their culture and feel secure in expressing their customs. However, by the same token, society expects certain responsibilities in return. I have yet to see lands taken up by a traveller camp returned to their previous condition by the travellers. I don't know how they can have a regular relationship with the revenue commissioners since they've no fixed abode and seem to exist in a cash economy. The 'settled' community are bound to feel aggrieved when the travellers apply for €115 million (according to the Last Word yesterday) for cultural projects, when the impression is there that they do not constructively engage with the community that'll be paying the bill.

bonkey

landser wrote:

you'll note the word distinctive is used in this definition.

Yes, I know. If you look at the point I was responding to, you'll notice that uberwolf said they may have a distinct culture, but that doesn't make them an ethnic group. Thats the point I was questioning....not whether or not they have a distinct culture.

living in caravan may well be distinctive... living in an apartment might also be such.... am i part of an ethnic grouping because of this? nope.

Because as we all know, the only difference between the travelling community and ourselves is that they live in caravans.....

Looking at one aspect which is different and saying that single difference doesn't make a seperate culture, is as strong an argument as saying that a single shared trait between two groups means their cultures are the same.

jc

Trojan

Billy, I'm not making a personal comment. I find it quite ironic that your first post on this thread immediately proves uberwolfs point that people using low-brow language gives you something obvious to criticise and allows you to ignore any of the real issues that need to be discussed.

You did just that, which is amusing. My comment in no way reflects on you personally, just the choice of argument.

Unfortunately it's unlikely that the issue of travellers will ever be discussed in a meaningful way until people heed uberwolfs advice.

landser

bonkey wrote:

Looking at one aspect which is different and saying that single difference doesn't make a seperate culture, is as strong an argument as saying that a single shared trait between two groups means their cultures are the same.jc

OK, then let's go through each of the points raised by the definition:

racial: no they are white and european

national: again no, they are irish (as much as anyone can be irish)

religious: No, Catholics to a man

linguistic: they do not have a seperate language, see my point above

cultural: they have lifestlye differences at best, as do many people

they are not an ethnic minority

bonkey

landser wrote:

OK, then let's go through each of the points raised by the definition:

No. before you do that go back and look at the point I was answering.

You may disagree with uberwolf, but he said that they may be a seperate culture, but this did not make them a seperate ethnic group.

This is the point I was addressing: not whether or not they have a seperate culture, but whether or not having a seperate culture would constitute them being an ethnic minority.

No matter how many times you want to analyse what I was looking at, nowhere did I say that they had a seperate culture or ethnicity. I said that if they have a seperate culture - as uberwolf conceded they might - that this should mean they would consitute a seperate ethnic group - which would seem to point at a discrepancy in what uberwolf said.

Now, if you want to start a seperate discussion as to whether or not I think they are a distinct culture, I'd be more than happy to do so, but I'd rather you do me the courtesy of waiting till I actually voice an opinion in that regard before telling me my conclusions are wrong because they aren't culturally seperate.

jc

bonkey

Trojan wrote:

Unfortunately it's unlikely that the issue of travellers will ever be discussed in a meaningful way until people heed uberwolfs advice.

I've deleted most of the posts which didn't heed it.

Next, I'll start removing the users if they persist in that behaviour.

This is not a "bash the travellers" thread.
You want that, go somewhere else.

jc

bonkey

landser wrote:

(travellers, at best, have a dialect and not a language).

Almost every reference I can find from a quick google of the word describes Shelta as a language.

I take it that you've some basis for your decision that it isn't? Would you share it with us? I'll accept personal opinion if you're linguistically qualified, or have some done some social research into the community you're making this judgement on, but then I'm sure you can supply the technical reasons why it isn't a seperate language...

As a somewhat related aside....would you consider Swiss-German to be a Gernan dialect, a seperate language, or possibly both?

jc

Roisin Dubh

I don't consider them a separate ethnic-group.

I feel they should settle. I remember when I lived with my parents in a rural area how travellers were constantly coming to the door trying to sell stuff to us. Dad actually did buy a painting from them but I often wonder where the Travellers got the painting from? Hmmmm... Could all be legit but I tend to not really trust Travellers.

How can we when all these stores are abound of them breaking into Castletown House (a few years ago I think and then leaving bags on rubbish in there before stoning an RTE camera crew!).

Travellers should settle. The idea that you can just park on someones lawn and then claim it as your own is bound to stir up trouble. They should also pay taxes - which many I hear do not.

Unsettled live encourages children to grow up with a disrespect for the law, especially when they see their caravans being moved on by the Gardai.

uberwolf

would a mass killing of travellers be ethnic cleansing?

seems a facetious question, but it struck me as an alternative means of answering the issue.

culture strikes me as implying different behavioural norms. Obviously people agree that travellers have this much. Their most boisterous opponents take glee in pointing out their outrages. A tacit acknowledgement of differences in this respect?



I should apologise, I'm dropping in and out of this thread from other work I'm doing - my arguments are a little disjointed as a consequence

Roisin Dubh

uberwolf wrote:

would a mass killing of travellers be ethnic cleansing?

seems a facetious question, but it struck me as an alternative means of answering the issue.

culture strikes me as implying different behavioural norms. Obviously people agree that travellers have this much. Their most boisterous opponents take glee in pointing out their outrages. A tacit acknowledgement of differences in this respect?



I should apologise, I'm dropping in and out of this thread from other work I'm doing - my arguments are a little disjointed as a consequence

Oh come now! No one here is uggesting massacres of Travellers! I am certainly not in favour of that! But I wish they would just settle instead of parking on peoples land without permission and then some of them extorting money in return for moving!

uberwolf

Roisin Dubh wrote:

Oh come now! No one here is uggesting massacres of Travellers! I am certainly not in favour of that!

nor indeed was I :rolleyes:

billy the squid

Trojan wrote:

Billy, I'm not making a personal comment. I find it quite ironic that your first post on this thread immediately proves uberwolfs point that people using low-brow language gives you something obvious to criticise and allows you to ignore any of the real issues that need to be discussed.

You did just that, which is amusing. My comment in no way reflects on you personally, just the choice of argument.

Unfortunately it's unlikely that the issue of travellers will ever be discussed in a meaningful way until people heed uberwolfs advice.

fair enough point taken.

billy the squid

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I don't consider them a separate ethnic-group.

I feel they should settle. I remember when I lived with my parents in a rural area how travellers were constantly coming to the door trying to sell stuff to us. Dad actually did buy a painting from them but I often wonder where the Travellers got the painting from? Hmmmm... Could all be legit but I tend to not really trust Travellers.

didnt martin Cahil steal paintings at one stage, he was settled. Criminality is not confined to the travelling community and it is not a good enough reason to deny that they are an ethnic group. If it was then you could say the same about Nigerians, or members of the IRA.

How can we when all these stores are abound of them breaking into Castletown House (a few years ago I think and then leaving bags on rubbish in there before stoning an RTE camera crew!).

see above

Travellers should settle. The idea that you can just park on someones lawn and then claim it as your own is bound to stir up trouble. They should also pay taxes - which many I hear do not.

who told you that? one of your mates down the pub no doubt.

again you would choose to deny recognition of an ethnic(yes landser I'll use the word ethnic) minority on the basis that you dont trust them.

I have notised from your other posts that you have a distrust of immigrants, would you consider these people to be ethnically different to Irish people or not. whether you trust them or not is irrelevent. and i mean that with the upmost respect.

Unsettled live encourages children to grow up with a disrespect for the law

take a walk through your nearest council estate, and ask how much respect for the law your local skangers have. again irrelevent.

, especially when they see their caravans being moved on by the Gardai.

garda victimisation of travellers is not unheard of.

landser wrote:

OK, then let's go through each of the points raised by the definition:

racial: no they are white and european

not all europeans are white, and not all travellers are irish. there are travelling families with meditaranian ancestry. this mixed in with irish travelling families has created a hybrid ethnic group. the only similarity i can think of is the creation of a hybrid language amongst the spannish speaking people of the United states called spanglish. which is a mix of english and spannnish.

national: again no, they are irish (as much as anyone can be irish)

what makes them Irish may I ask?

religious: No, Catholics to a man

There are over a billion catholics in the world. not all of them are white. a person's religion does not make them an ethnic minority.

linguistic: they do not have a seperate language, see my point above

your forgetting shelta. it is still used by the travelling community and has as many if not more distinctive characteristics as any settled person's language.

cultural: they have lifestlye differences at best, as d

Travellers also have customs which are unique to travellers. Living in a caravan might be a lifestyle, funeral rites, for example,burning the dead person's caravan to free their spirit, is a custom (for want of a better word).

Roisin Dubh

didnt martin Cahil steal paintings at one stage, he was settled. Criminality is not confined to the travelling community and it is not a good enough reason to deny that they are an ethnic group. If it was then you could say the same about Nigerians, or members of the IRA.

Yes but there are only around 25,000 Travellers south of the border and 7,000 north of it. So the constant occurrence of this chaotic behaviour such as that which I have mentioned, together with the Gardai constantly finding weapons e.g. swords etc. at Traveller encampments in apparent preparation for clan warfare, and especially the stoning by 700 travellers of the RTE camera crew a few years ago that approached Castletown House, surely is a sign of a dysfunctional way of life that encourages disrespect for the law - seeing the law as the "settled peoples" law as opposed to the law of the land. That is my conclusion.

again you would choose to deny recognition of an ethnic(yes landser I'll use the word ethnic) minority on the basis that you dont trust them.

I have notised from your other posts that you have a distrust of immigrants, would you consider these people to be ethnically different to Irish people or not. whether you trust them or not is irrelevent. and i mean that with the upmost respect.

I agree with the Government that they are not an ethnic group. It isn't just that they are white and Catholic and have no separate language unlike the Romas. Even their surnames are Gaelic, e.g. Conners, McDonagh, etc. They are in the vast majority of cases NOT some kind of historically separate ethnic-group. I have read somewhere years ago that present-day travellers may have begun in the 19th century, perhaps as a result of Irish tenants having been evicted by the cruel landlords. Now that the Irish have regained their property rights, it is best for all to live under a roof. It is certainly better from the point of view of the health of the Travellers themselves. We are constantly hearing whinging in the media from Travellers about appalling living conditions. All I can say is "You are choosing that! Settle for flips sake and you'll have far better living conditions than living at the side of the road!". This is common sense!

your forgetting shelta.

What the hell is shelta?

billy the squid

What the hell is shelta?

did you try google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelta

Yes but there are only around 25,000 Travellers south of the border and 7,000 north of it. So the constant occurrence of this chaotic behaviour such as that which I have mentioned, together with the Gardai constantly finding weapons e.g. swords etc. at Traveller encampments in apparent preparation for clan warfare, and especially the stoning by 700 travellers of the RTE camera crew a few years ago that approached Castletown House, surely is a sign of a dysfunctional way of life that encourages disrespect for the law - seeing the law as the "settled peoples" law as opposed to the law of the land. That is my conclusion.

my point is that there is also crime in the settled community also. again it is irrelevent to whether or not the traveling community is or is not an ethnic minority.

agree with the Government that they are not an ethnic group. It isn't just that they are white and Catholic and have no separate language unlike the Romas

you happen to be wrong about that. see the link above. having learned some of it from my parents i can assure you, its a language.

Even their surnames are Gaelic, e.g. Conners, McDonagh, etc. They are in the vast majority of cases NOT some kind of historically separate ethnic-group. I have read somewhere years ago that present-day travellers may have begun in the 19th century, perhaps as a result of Irish tenants having been evicted by the cruel landlords.

have you ever heard of an island called Monserat. it is not unusual for black people to have names like Paddy O Reily or Seamus McCarthy. it is also worth mentioning that immigrants in ellis island often took names which were native to their new english speaking host.

Irish Travellers have their roots in a Celtic (and possibly pre-Celtic) nomadic population in Ireland. They are very definitely not Roma (or ‘Gypsies’). Neither are Travellers the product of An Gorta Mór or the ‘Great Hunger’ of 1845 – 50. While the original Irish nomadic population may have been supplemented at various times in Irish history by dispossessed labourers and other marginalised people, there was clearly a distinct Traveller population before the ‘Famine’."

source: Third World on our doorstep? by Robbie McVeigh

There are certain "clans" within the irish travelling community who are indeed decended from the roma

http://www.irishclans.com/articles/travellers.html

so now what you have in ireland are the decendents of a) native irish nomads from celtic times b) roma gypsies who have been here since the 1300s and displaced people from the great famine.

I would like to know your source, as it would appear to be inaccurate.

also might be worth mentioning that the shelta that I know has its roots in the italian language, I doubt that the displaced during the famine took up holidaying in the great city of Rome.

AmenToThat

I dont know if I would see them as being differen ethnically to me............probably not!
Culturally however I do believe they are different to the majority of the population and as such I think they are deserving of special attention in this regard.

Roisin Dubh

billy the squid wrote:

did you try google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelta



my point is that there is also crime in the settled community also. again it is irrelevent to whether or not the traveling community is or is not an ethnic minority.



you happen to be wrong about that. see the link above. having learned some of it from my parents i can assure you, its a language.

That link seems to confirm Shelta as a dialect of Gaelic/Irish. I see it therefore as having a relationship to Irish like that of Ulster Scots to Lowland Scots/English. Indeed the word Shelta is thought to be derived from the Irish word Siulta for "walk", a reference to the travelling.

have you ever heard of an island called Monserat. it is not unusual for black people to have names like Paddy O Reily or Seamus McCarthy. it is also worth mentioning that immigrants in ellis island often took names which were native to their new english speaking host.

Yes but its sortof like the Pitcairn islands where nearly everyone is descended from the Bounty mutineers. The people of Montserrat with names like that got their surnames in similar vein, with respect to Irish settlers or Irish slaveowners. Slaveowners tended to pass their surnames onto their slaves.

All the travellers I know are clearly white. There is NO evidence linking them to the Indian-originated Gypsies. When I see Eastern European Roma on TV, one thing I and most people will notice is how "Indian" their skin looks i.e. not pale at all, actually slightly Asian looking. The same definitely cannot be said of Irish Travellers. I see the attempt to link the Gysies to Irish Travellers as part of an agenda by the Travellers to shield themselves from criticism by asserting that any criticism of them is "racism". They are obviously not of Indian descent in Ireland. I mean look at them! They look the same as us, except far less well behaved! Victims of bad parenting, I feel. No offence.

There are certain "clans" within the irish travelling community who are indeed decended from the roma

http://www.irishclans.com/articles/travellers.html

so now what you have in ireland are the decendents of a) native irish nomads from celtic times b) roma gypsies who have been here since the 1300s and displaced people from the great famine.

I would like to know your source, as it would appear to be inaccurate.

also might be worth mentioning that the shelta that I know has its roots in the italian language, I doubt that the displaced during the famine took up holidaying in the great city of Rome.

What evidence have you that it is linked to Italian? Your earlier source seemed to refer to evidence of a dominant Gaelic origin of the "language" which I actually see as a dialect of Irish rather than a separate language. Regarding the gypsies "being here since the 1300's", I disagree. The gypsies are descended from Indians expelled by the Muslims from northern India in the 1300's. They most certainly did not form a large presence in Ireland back then.

Just because the term "Roma" is thought to mean "Traveller" does NOT mean that Irish Travellers are Roma in the Indian-originated sense of the word.

Indian people generally look very different to Europeans and I know lots of travellers with the palest skin I have ever seen.

They are not a separate racial group. I do not wish to tar them all with the one brush. But I urge them, for pities sake, to settle and end the chaos the unsettled way of life leads many of them into.

billy the squid

What evidence have you that it is linked to Italian?

my parents spoke it, and I have honours italian in my leaving Certificate. even with this limited knowlage of both languages it is easy to see the similarities win various words.

Your earlier source seemed to refer to evidence of a dominant Gaelic origin of the "language" which I actually see as a dialect of Irish rather than a separate language.

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, similar to irish, there are various dialects of shelta depending on a family's background.

Regarding the gypsies "being here since the 1300's", I disagree. The gypsies are descended from Indians expelled by the Muslims from northern India in the 1300's. They most certainly did not form a large presence in Ireland back then.

There is little point in me asking you for a source for this, as you havent provided a source for your last statement yet.

as for forming a large presence in ireland, I never said that, and I wouldnt call the present day population of 25,000 large. and the indian roma is just a part of that lineage, mixed together with other nomadic groups over the past 700 years.

That link seems to confirm Shelta as a dialect of Gaelic/Irish. I see it therefore as having a relationship to Irish like that of Ulster Scots to Lowland Scots/English. Indeed the word Shelta is thought to be derived from the Irish word Siulta for "walk", a reference to the travelling.

The construction of sentences and phrases in shelta are more like those of english than Irish. the first line of the first link states that it is indeed a language, and if you look anywhere else on the internet you will find that it is a language, not a dialect of a language.

All the travellers I know are clearly white.

considering you didnt even know what shelta was I dont imagine you know very many of them.

besides the french are white, are the french of the same ethnicity as the irish. or the sweedish, or the russians for that matter.

There is NO evidence linking them to the Indian-originated Gypsies. When I see Eastern European Roma on TV, one thing I and most people will notice is how "Indian" their skin looks i.e. not pale at all, actually slightly Asian looking. The same definitely cannot be said of Irish Travellers. I see the attempt to link the Gysies to Irish Travellers as part of an agenda by the Travellers to shield themselves from criticism by asserting that any criticism of them is "racism". They are obviously not of Indian descent in Ireland. I mean look at them! They look the same as us, except far less well behaved! Victims of bad parenting, I feel. No offence.

who said that roma gypsies made up 100 percent of the travelling community, go back and read my post again.

landser

bonkey wrote:

No. before you do that go back and look at the point I was answering.

You may disagree with uberwolf, but he said that they may be a seperate culture, but this did not make them a seperate ethnic group.

This is the point I was addressing: not whether or not they have a seperate culture, but whether or not having a seperate culture would constitute them being an ethnic minority.

No matter how many times you want to analyse what I was looking at, nowhere did I say that they had a seperate culture or ethnicity. I said that if they have a seperate culture - as uberwolf conceded they might - that this should mean they would consitute a seperate ethnic group - which would seem to point at a discrepancy in what uberwolf said.

Now, if you want to start a seperate discussion as to whether or not I think they are a distinct culture, I'd be more than happy to do so, but I'd rather you do me the courtesy of waiting till I actually voice an opinion in that regard before telling me my conclusions are wrong because they aren't culturally seperate.

jc

I know what you said. i do not believe that they are ethnically different nor do i believe that they have a seperate culture. Your previous post posed the ambigous question, that if they had a distinct culture, then the size of the grouping was the only point left to consider. I did not accept the premise that they had a distinct culture, nor did i feel that they qualified under any of the other headings in the definition. perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, istead of flying off the handle

also, can you stop italicising every second word pls. its very annoying

the_syco

Kn4ck3rs; Those white lawless f*cks who camp anywhere they can, and leave vast amounts of rubbish when they leave.

Travellers; Nice people. Tidy. There used to be a group called the "Castletown Travellers", as they worked in Leixlip every year, untill about 3 years ago.

There was a few traveller campmnets in Leixlip, near the Louisa Bridge, and you could easily talk talk to them. Any kn4ck3r campments I see, I feel imtimtaded if I walk by them.

Those who are going to come back are nice. Those who seem to only come here for the summer months (ie; on holiday) aren't. Those who wish to camp in a field untill they're payed to move don't deserve the name "travellers", as travellers are nice people. Those who camp in the field and leave vast amounts of cr4p behind are kn4ck3rs.

Sleepy

Wikipedia wrote:

There are approximately 86,000 worldwide speakers of Shelta, with anywhere from 6,000-25,000 in Ireland itself according to various sources

The figures of this sound extremely odd to me, given that it's an Irish-based 'language'. Going by the description given on wikipedia, it sounds far more like a bastardised version of Irish. Since it only dates back to the 1870's (only two lifetimes ago), my perspective upon this would be that the group's closed nature and ignorance (strictly in the educational sense) would have been the creators of this 'language'.

Personally, I would regard the traveller life-style as exactly that: a life-style choice. Succesive governments have repeatedly tried to enourage travellers to settle through offers of council housing. I don't believe that the provision of halting sites is any more a governmental responsibility than the provision of nudist beaches is. Illegal halting sites (i.e. the side of the road) are exactly that: Illegal. Hardly fair to call it Garda discrimination against the travelling community to insist they obey the law is it?

If travellers want to continue their chosen lifestyle, they should pay for a number of sites as a group (perhaps through some form of legal partnership scheme or limited company?) ensure that the sites are fitted with adequate sanitation, electricity, water etc and restrict their parking of caravans to these sites only.

Note: my views on Shelta have been formed entirely on what I've read on the wikipedia link given by billy the squid above. If there are inaccuracies in the wikipedia entry, I'd be happy to rethink this opinion if someone can point them out.

Blub2k4

Sleepy wrote:

The figures of this sound extremely odd to me, given that it's an Irish-based 'language'. Going by the description given on wikipedia, it sounds far more like a bastardised version of Irish. Since it only dates back to the 1870's (only two lifetimes ago), my perspective upon this would be that the group's closed nature and ignorance (strictly in the educational sense) would have been the creators of this 'language'.

Wow that's a very selective reading of the defnition of Shelta, amazing how you derive something different to what is written on the page.

Wikipedia wrote:

The language is spoken almost exclusively by Travellers, though linguists have documented Shelta since at least the 1870s. Both Celtic expert Kuno Meyer and Romany expert John Sampson assert that Shelta existed as far back as the 13th century.

Does anyone know if the McDonagh clan (Ballymote/Sligo traveller family) are originally a Fir Bolg clan?

landser

Blub2k4 wrote:

Does anyone know if the McDonagh clan (Ballymote/Sligo traveller family) are originally a Fir Bolg clan?

no one could tell, as anything we know about the fir bolg was written down by monks in the dark ages. i know plenty of mcdonaghs in sligo who claim no such origin.

the point of the matter is that irish travellers are not a seperate ethnic group such as the central european gypsies who, for the most part were nomads from eastern eurpoe. irish travellers are the descendants of the evictees of the 19th century and of itinerant workers. hence the fact that their surnames are found not only in the traveller community but also in the settled community. many of the "customs" they practice are hangovers from irish culture, which the majority of he population have abandoned. their dialect similarly is a mish mash of irish/english, which would probably not have been uncommon amongst most peasant irish prior to the 20th century. indeed, my own grandmother, a native of sligo, used many irish words as part of her normal vernacular, they were not just affectations, but part of her daily speech.

billy the squid

the_syco wrote:

Kn4ck3rs; Those white lawless f*cks who camp anywhere they can, and leave vast amounts of rubbish when they leave.

Travellers; Nice people. Tidy. There used to be a group called the "Castletown Travellers", as they worked in Leixlip every year, untill about 3 years ago.

There was a few traveller campmnets in Leixlip, near the Louisa Bridge, and you could easily talk talk to them. Any kn4ck3r campments I see, I feel imtimtaded if I walk by them.

Those who are going to come back are nice. Those who seem to only come here for the summer months (ie; on holiday) aren't. Those who wish to camp in a field untill they're payed to move don't deserve the name "travellers", as travellers are nice people. Those who camp in the field and leave vast amounts of cr4p behind are kn4ck3rs.

you will find nefarious elements in all societies unfortunately. one could easily point to acts of criminal and anti social behaviour in any social group, whether it be traveller, protestant, nationalist, arab, jewish, you name it.

the presence of criminal activity does not however etermine whether or not there is an ethnical distinction present or not.

The Corinthian

billy the squid wrote:

also might be worth mentioning that the shelta that I know has its roots in the italian language, I doubt that the displaced during the famine took up holidaying in the great city of Rome.

Similarities do not actually imply any direct relationship.

The majority of European languages are Indo-European in origin. As such you will often find similar roots in many of them, leaving us with curious similarities between Italian and Farsi (Persian), even though the latter did not in any way evolve from the former. Additionally you are forgetting the influence of the monastic period on Irish culture and language, that gave us such words as that for horse; In Irish we get capail (sp?) - instantly recognisable to the ecclesiastical Latin cavallus or Italian cavallo.

It is far more likely that any similarities you have noticed are as a result of a common Indo-European root, as well as the linguistic influence of the monastic period on Irish.

As for Shelta being a separate language, this is debatable. It’s been argued also that it is nothing more than a dialect or bastardisation of Gaelic Irish. And strong or unintelligible dialects are not unusual in any nation - Something you’d no doubt realize if you ever attempted to speak to a Neapolitan with your Leaving Cert Italian

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

As for Shelta being a separate language, this is debatable. It’s been argued also that it is nothing more than a dialect or bastardisation of Gaelic Irish. And strong or unintelligible dialects are not unusual in any nation - Something you’d no doubt realize if you ever attempted to speak to a Neapolitan with your Leaving Cert Italian

When does a dialect become a language? When a native speaker of the language can no longer recognise it as their spoken tongue?
I speak German and "Frieske" ( friesian ) which is "platt deutsch" which is a dialect of German but parallel it has a status as a language of its own.
Similarly for all latin based languages, are they not merely dialects of each other?

The Corinthian

Blub2k4 wrote:

When does a dialect become a language? When a native speaker of the language can no longer recognise it as their spoken tongue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#.22Dialect.22_or_.22Language.22

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#.22Dialect.22_or_.22Language.22

wikipedia wrote:

There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference

so it is really debatable, and not as black and white as some would have it.

Trojan

FFS NOTHING is black and white, even "accepted science" like physics or mathematics.

That should be printed at the top and bottom of every page on boards.

Blub2k4

Trojan wrote:

FFS NOTHING is black and white, even "accepted science" like physics or mathematics.

That should be printed at the top and bottom of every page on boards.

Well that outburst furthers the debate, well done.

billy the squid

Trojan wrote:

FFS NOTHING is black and white, even "accepted science" like physics or mathematics.

That should be printed at the top and bottom of every page on boards.

its funny because its true.

landser wrote:

the point of the matter is that irish travellers are not a seperate ethnic group such as the central european gypsies who, for the most part were nomads from eastern eurpoe. irish travellers are the descendants of the evictees of the 19th century and of itinerant workers. hence the fact that their surnames are found not only in the traveller community but also in the settled community. many of the "customs" they practice are hangovers from irish culture, which the majority of he population have abandoned. their dialect similarly is a mish mash of irish/english, which would probably not have been uncommon amongst most peasant irish prior to the 20th century. indeed, my own grandmother, a native of sligo, used many irish words as part of her normal vernacular, they were not just affectations, but part of her daily speech.[/qutoe]

I believe I addressed your points in the link below.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2448105&postcount=28

Roisin Dubh

billy the squid wrote:

you will find nefarious elements in all societies unfortunately. one could easily point to acts of criminal and anti social behaviour in any social group, whether it be traveller, protestant, nationalist, arab, jewish, you name it.

the presence of criminal activity does not however etermine whether or not there is an ethnical distinction present or not.

Correct, especially when they are not even an ethnic group.

They have a lifestyle choice that causes the problems they complain about in the media.

landser

billy the squid wrote:

I believe I addressed your points in the link below.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2448105&postcount=28

eh, you didn't really. only one of your retorts actually made sense and that was the point re shelta, which is a good debatable point. i didn't actually see the logic behind a couple of your retorts.

you stated that religion does not an ethnic minority make. this is actaully a counter stance to the definition of ethnicity as see out supra.


you're question as to what makes the travellers irish was more than a little obtuse and doesn't really command a response.

you selectively quoted my point re customs -v- lifestyles, so, similarly, there is little point in responding.

as for the racial point, you started off talking about race and ened up talking about language (in the space of three lines), therefore, it would be difficult to know how to respond. further your point re racial origin was ad hoc. anyway, i think you'll find that the majority of people from the mediterranean are european.

billy the squid

Correct, especially when they are not even an ethnic group.

the relevence of my post to which you replied to and whether or not a unique ethnic group exists is what exactly?

They have a lifestyle choice that causes the problems they complain about in the media.

an opinion of course to which you are entitled to.

billy the squid

you're question as to what makes the travellers irish was more than a little obtuse and doesn't really command a response.

maybe, but by your logic the portugese on the iberian peninsula would be spannish. they have a different language, but because they are living in a part of europe dominated by spannish speakers, they should be deemed as spannish?

you stated that religion does not an ethnic minority make. this is actaully a counter stance to the definition of ethnicity as see out supra.

religion still does not make an ethnic group. there are african catholics who would not consider themselves european.

you selectively quoted my point re customs -v- lifestyles, so, similarly, there is little point in responding.

enlighten me, I however dont believe that i selectively quoted you, i quoted the whole post actually.

as for the racial point, you started off talking about race and ened up talking about language (in the space of three lines), therefore, it would be difficult to know how to respond. further your point re racial origin was ad hoc. anyway, i think you'll find that the majority of people from the mediterranean are european.

probably not punctuated properly but the point remains the same. After 700 odd years (if not more) of nomadic people in ireland we have the travelling community we see today. with a mostly Irish, but not totally Irish.

as for my reference to the english-spannish hybrid language which has developed in the states, the same process may have occoured here with the mixing of gaelic and other european languages.

as for your second point most majority of people from the majority of people in the mediteranian are european, majority is not all.

Sleepy

Blub2k4 wrote:

Wow that's a very selective reading of the defnition of Shelta, amazing how you derive something different to what is written on the page.

Maybe you would like to tackle my point of view rather that simply dismiss it because my interpretation of a piece of text differs from yours?